I understand that the big bang and evolution are just theories. However, given the number of arguably faesible alternatives to and the minimal evidence for the big bang surely a lot of faith is needed in order to accept it. There is always going to be some area of any scientific theory that may be subject to debate and thus faith in a theory is always required.

Afraid haven't really the time to reply fully now, but i will try to add to this later.

Appologies

I am currently doing my A-levels in the UK. (bio, chem and maths). All being well I will do Biology at Uni in october.

Mithril, I agree with you up to a point. As far as comparing large-scale religions to each other, such as Christianity to Buddhism, there really is no objective way to decide which is right or wrong. However, when comparing religions that have a common sacred book that both believe is infallible, then it's as simple as deciding which is more consistent with the teachings of that book. That's a lot easier than you make it seem. As I said the Bible is very clear as to what it means. As an example let me tell you about a discussion I had at work last week. A coworker who happens to be Christian tried to tell me that the Bible doesn't say that Christians need to be baptized. He was of course completely wrong, and just off the top of my head I quoted two or three verses that say exactly that. He responded by changing the subject so he didn't have to admit to being wrong. Now, I ask you, was his "interpretation" (if you could call it that) as good as mine? No! The very book that he and I both believe to be infallible tells us that Christians must be baptized, so to say otherwise is nowhere close to a valid interpretation; it's outright wrong. So sometimes it is possible to decide which interpretations are right or wrong, just look at the holy books and see what they say. Most of the time they're pretty straight-forward as to what they mean.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Alex
I am just adressing the flood issue
my eyes are burnng so I am printing
out anything after that to read tomorrow.

I concede to you.
that yes this was not a mere little local
flood or anything it definetly had global impliations.
As is stated it rained 40 days non stop torrential rain.
compare that with what happens just a few weeks of
monsoon season does
to parts of India to get the picture of the devastation
that occured from 40 days and nights--catastrophic!!

First of all,
Let me say this:
In the bible the word earth or worlds is often
used interchangably just as it is in our day.
For example we might say why is the earth
becoming so bad. Of course we dont mean the literal earth.
With that thoght in mind,
I was answering a question about all the animals on earth
could not have fit in the ark given the size of it.

In that context, I pointed out how it was the I
nhabited earth that the deluge would be primarily
directed.
The purpose of the flood was to wash the whole world
of that time out of existence. In 6:11 it says that the earth
was being ruined by humans. and in verse 13 it says the earth
would be destoyed because of the violence.. Here it can't be literal because the earth is
still here. So can we concliude that the focus of the flood was
the violent, destructive, humans alive at the time and
unfortunatlythe animals would also parish along with them.

What was brought in to the ark was animals from this area,
as its not logical to assume that Noah went all over the entire
literal earth to gather up all the animals. God the creator
knowing all the genetic codes of all his creatures instructed
Noah as to just what "kinds" to bring upon the ark: "according
to their kinds... in which the force of life was active"

The ark was 1,400,000 cu ft. I have heard that only 43 kinds
of mammels 74 birds and 10 reptile species could produce the
diversity (you others can call evolution) I would like to know if any
one has an other estimate more or less conservative than this.
(Source unknown at this time I am searching though)
so the ark had ample room to accomadate these animals.
And what ever insects that hitched a ride.

Besides the actual water damage there would be other dire
affects to the earth. of course. to the crust, to the weather
patterns, quik freezes etc...even the earths tilt. so yes you
are right it was global my apologies.
but the deluge was because of, and directed at, people of one area.
the only "inhabited earth".
As Peter later said that God brought a deluge upon an ancient world.
2 peter 2:5
I have more to say but enough for one page I dont want your
eyes to glaze over like mine sometimes get.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

Linn, to make your argument about "kinds," you have to accept that evolution is possible. What you're saying is that life evolved after it left the ark. To make this argument you have to admit that evolution is possible.

The more important thing is where did you get your numbers? Sure, all mammals and reptiles and birds may have evolved from just a handful of species, for that matter so could all life on earth. But in just a few thousand years? The flood supposedly occurred 4000 years ago; it's impossible for that much biodiversity to evolve that fast. And the even bigger, and much more crucial question, is that there is absolutely no evidence that the flood ever occurred.

Noah would've had to take animals from the oceans as well, since the ocean habitat would've been destroyed when the salt water was diluted with that much rain (fresh) water. And he would've had to take plants as well, since they wouldn't have survived either. Which reminds me, where did the dove get the olive branch that it brought back to the ark? All of these inconsistencies tell me that the story's little more than a metaphor.

A metaphor for what? For one, God always rescues the faithful, even out of apocalyptic scenarios. Also, there's an environmental question here. Like you said, God destroyed the earth because of man's violence. I wonder if God is talking about the way mankind destroys both himself and his environment. This follows shortly after the story of Eden, when humans lost immortal perfection because of the their own foolish pride. It's almost as if, thousand of years before today's environmental and social justice crises, God is beginning His book by telling us that our greatest enemy is not the devil, but ourselves. After all, the devil can only tempt us; it is by our own free will that we destroy ourselves. To support this point I leave you with this:

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

The one thing that St. Paul fails to mention, because it alone can separate us from God, is ourselves.

When read metaphorically, the opening chapters of Genesis have this powerful story to tell; when read literally, it's nothing more than simple history. It's obviously not literal because there's so many insurmountalbe problems that come with a literal interpretation; read figuratively, and it's much more powerful.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Alex
If every one went back and read things
I have said
I do believe in that things can change. and definetly in speciation.
I have different views on the specifics though.
And that their are certain "laws" or rules of nature that prevent some kinds of evolution. I think in the future scientists will understand what those lmits are and taxonomy needs to be changed.

ooh i got to get to bed have work tomorrow...
but it could happen that fast, and there is evidence of a flood.
talk more tomorrow or Saturday.
I have to stay on top of these conversations or I get lost.

one more thing i just saw on the science channel today 'evolution"

that sharks could have survived catastrophies. and plants can survive time submerged. and i still have doubts that water literally covered the whole earth, yes it was all affected in one way or another, but like i said the deluge was primarily dircted at mankind in one area.

Did you know the tsunami last year tilted the earth? that was only a part f the earth and yet it had an effect on the whole earth. amazing

goodnight

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

I'm certainly interested to hear what evidence you have that this flood occurred and that evolution can occur so fast. I believe there's about 40 million or so species alive today; how could so many have come from only a handful in just a few thousand years? 4000 may seem like a lot, but evolutionists claim that those same 40 million species took 4 billion years and creationists still complain that it isn't enough time. Now you're trying to say that it occurred literally one million times faster? I'm definitely very interested to see how you will answer these questions.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Plants can survive time submerged, up to a point. Genesis tells us that Noah was in the ark for almost a year:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows ofthe heavens were opened. (Gen 7:11)

In the six hudred first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw that the face of teh ground was drying. (Gen 8:13)

Plants cannot suvive eleven and a half months underwater. And yet, the dove returns with an olive branch. Where did it find such a thing, if all the trees were dead?

Also, I don't doubt that the rotation of the earth was affected by the tsunami, and that Noah's flood could've done the same, but I fail to see the connection or how this could be used as evidence that the flood actually happened. Please explain.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

here is one for starters:http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

other evidence
sea shells found on high mountains.
mammouths and rhinocerous found on high cliffs in Siberia
Quick frozen animals found in muck and ice.
For example mammouth found in Siberia,
still had vegetation in mouth and flesh was etible when
thawed. These deep freezes would have accompanied
the flood in polar regions of the earth.
yjere is a ton of stuff about the flood for and against but I
like to find the most objectionable and credible sourse.
There was a good program on National Geographic and
evidence thus far found supporting o great flood.
I have seen other similar programs on science channels too.

ALex wrote:Linn, to make your argument about "kinds," you have to accept that evolution is possible. What you're saying is that life evolved after it left the ark. To make this argument you have to admit that evolution is possible.

If you want to call it evolution go ahead.
See I am getting confused as to what peoples view of
evolution is.
I do not believe things can just mutate in to other things.
Oh I had to come back and edit (add) to this because it will
confuse some of you.
I believe in genetic mutations that cn be passed to offspring,
after all its in the bible. What I mean is mutation from say a
cat to a horse or a dog etc..

I believe what is possible and observable.
And a good example of rapid diversification of a species is the wolf.
Just as an example.

Noah was told by God what to take on to the ark
and since he was the originator of the genetic codes
of everything he would know which families would be
able to produce new species. The genes were not as branched
out and it was more possible then, as more things divd=ersified
they became distinct species and genetic barriers were created.

Sorry I just cant articulate it very well.

There are laws or rules of genetics.
once a cookie is baked its baked!!

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

one mutaion for example that I believe in (BECAUSE IT IS A FACT) is the delta32 mutation. and I hope in the future scientists can get that in to us but that tech is beyond us currently. The only way now is sexual inheritance, so if you want your kids to have a copy find someone with it, or if you have a copy and they do too all the better.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

This is because the mountains are pushed up when two plates of the earth's crust collide together; thus, ground that used to be the sea floor becomes a mountain range (for example, the Himalayas).

mammouths and rhinocerous found on high cliffs in Siberia

Couldn't they just have lived there naturally? Sort of like mountain goats?

Quick frozen animals found in muck and ice.

I'm not quite sure if this could be caused by a flood. Simple rapid temperature change seems more probable. Around here I've seen the temperature drop or rise as much as 20F in one hour. I can easily picture this happening in an ice age climate, sending the temperature from a bit above freezing, to significantly below fast enough to create exactly those effects.

I believe in genetic mutations that cn be passed to offspring, after all its in the bible. What I mean is mutation from say a cat to a horse or a dog etc..

We're not talking about cats evolving into horses; we're talking about all of them having a common ancestor.

Noah was told by God what to take on to the ark and since he was the originator of the genetic codes of everything he would know which families would be able to produce new species.

Noah was told to take every animal "according to its kind." If you define this as families instead of species, then still have a lot to account for. First of all, the ark would've had to support literally hundreds of thousands of organisms, including land and aquatic animals and plants, and enough food to support all of them for an entire year. As much as elephants eat, that's a lot of plants; for carnivorous animals, it means taking much more than just two pairs of each herbivore. And you still haven't answered where the dove got the olive branch. What happened after they exited the ark? Noah immediately sacrificed some of the animals, and it wouldn't have taken long for the carnivores to get hungry and start looking for food. If just one herbivore any kind dies, that kind goes extinct. If Noah took many more than just two of each, then the ark's too small; if he took just one pair of each, then there wouldn't have been enough to survive very long after they got out. Last of all, wouldn't each kind just gone extinct anyway through too much inbreeding? I can't see that as helping the evolution of the organism at all.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".